Canada's humiliation continues at COP 15

Canada's humiliation continues at COP 15

Pathetic Update: Prentice has now actually delivered the speech, as written except that he mentioned that Canada is a big, cold country, aligned with the United States. Funny, it was a big and even colder country when it committed in 1997 to a greenhouse gas reduction target that we are going to miss by more than 30 per cent. Does he think that the international community is completely stupid?

Greenpeace Update: Check the bottom of the post for a blistering reaction from Dave Martin at Greenpeace

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is hiding out in Copenhagen, too embarrassed to show his face in the COP15 plenary, the general meeting of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. And who can blame him? Canada’s position is somewhere between colossally unhelpful and punishingly vacuous.

Take, for example, the national statement that Harper deputed to Environment Minister Jim Prentice. It features no commitments whatever - no targets, no money, no apology for past sins - just platitutdes and spin, and bad spin at that. It was released an hour ago, although the session is running behind and Prentice has not yet dragged Canada’s reputation even lower on the Fossil meter.

We have come to Copenhagen to secure a fair, effective and comprehensive climate change agreement. We need an agreement that will put us on a path toward ambitious reductions in greenhouse gases and sustainable, low-carbon economic growth. An agreement that will ensure a growing supply of clean, affordable energy for all countries. An agreement that brings countries together to address our shared global economic and environmental challenges.

Canadians of all ages and in all regions share a profound interest in contributing to effective global action on climate change.

A new global agreement should consist of a single, comprehensive undertaking that includes measurable, reportable and verifiable commitments and actions covering the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions in developed and developing countries.

To be as fair and effective as possible, a new global agreement should support mutual confidence, and encourage countries to assume increased ambition over time.

It needs to speed the development and deployment of clean, low-emitting technology.

And it needs to support enhanced global action to help the poorest and most vulnerable countries.

Canada is ready to contribute its fair share, as part of a comprehensive global agreement, including fast-start funding.

Achieving such an agreement will require a renewed commitment to work together, a renewed partnership among all nations and governments. It is only through the efforts of all of us that we can protect the most vulnerable among us, including those communities and ecosystems that depend on ice and snow.

Let me conclude by recognizing the United Nations and the Government of Denmark for their tireless efforts and leadership on climate change. Canada will continue to act at home, to align its policies and commitments with those of the Obama Administration, and to work in partnership with all countries, developed and developing, who are committed to effective global action on climate change.

Harper government Copenhagen climate statement – an insult to the world

17 December 2009 – Canada’s national statement in Copenhagen is an insult to the world – particularly the poorest and most vulnerable countries that are already suffering the worst impacts of climate change.

The reported climate funding announcement in Copenhagen by Canada’s environment minister Jim Prentice has turned out to be only a vague reference to “fast-start funding” with no specific dollar figure for Canada’s contribution.

Hillary Clinton offered a ray of hope at the Copenhagen climate conference by supporting creation of a climate fund of $100 billion per year by 2020, but Prentice has failed to support this initiative, despite stating in the speech that Canada will continue “to align its policies and commitments with those of the Obama Administration”.

Long-term financing to 2020 and beyond is needed to seal a deal between industrial and developing countries in Copenhagen. At least $140 billion (USD) per year is needed by 2020 to fund emission reductions and adaption to the climate crisis in the developing world. Canada’s fair share of that would be about $4 billion (CAD) per year.

The Harper government needs to provide its fair share of long-term climate financing for the developing world; it needs to support meaningful greenhouse gas reduction targets; and it has to join a legally binding international agreement. It has done none of these things.

The Harper government has refused to be part of a global climate change solution in Copenhagen. Stephen Harper has arrived in Copenhagen, but so far is hiding from the adverse publicity which has followed on Canada’s dismal performance at the conference.

Previous Comments

Harper has learned that you say the politically correct thing, but you don’t jump in with both feet. It’s the same game everyone else is playing. The difference being that many of the other players are more skilled in the art of faking environmental concern. Give him time. Harper will catch up.

“The mass-introduction of the plug-in hybrid electric car is still a few decades away, according to new analysis by the National Research Council.

The study, released on Monday, also found that the next generation of plug-in hybrids could require hundreds of billions of dollars in government subsidies to take off.

Even then, plug-in hybrids would not have a significant impact on the nation’s oil consumption or carbon emissions before 2030. Savings in oil imports would also be modest, according to the report, which was financed with the help of the Energy Department. ”

We can’t afford to waste hundreds of billions on AGW to give to “poor” countries.

Where the right hugs the left and the left is way out in left field. Good politics on this issue as Harper will garner support from both deniers and believers while the left scrambles for the ever diminishing voterbase comprised of AGW believers.

On thing Harper knows for sure is that the appetite for increased taxes, increased cost of goods in absolutely zero irregardless of belief in AGW. He will not risk a majority to placate some left wing activist throwing bricks.

The sad thing about copenhagen is that business,activists,governments are all represented. The person who is footing the bill is all but forgoteen at this event. I would like to see some lobby group go that represents the taxpayers either pro or con AGW. I’m tired of hearing activists trying to lever pressure for deeper cuts more and more money. Give the guy at home with a mortgage and kids a freakin break already.

I would certainly deny the science of global warming alarmism, however the AGW theory as a minor forcing does have scientific merit. All in all a problem akin to a hangnail, not worth worrying about.

As far as the government do I think harper would lie? Yes. Do I think Ignatieff would lie? Yes Jack Layton mmm yes, Duceppe yes, May yes too.

Watch all Canadians governments to pay lipservice to this issue until it becomes overwhelmingly unpopular. I expect that to occur within the next two years if the following occurs.

1. We see continued cooling IE no more summers like 1998. Wether you choose to believe in cooling or not the global warming theory is vested with the idea that the earth will be warmer than it was in the past. That is the political image in peoples heads.

2. The copenhagen treaty does not get ratified within the next year or some other binding legal framework. If it does GW is locked in and will be accepted overtime if tax increases are not too high.

The liberals will talk about Kyoto but do nothing. The conservatives will talk about kyoto but do nothing. That is canadian politics and that is how we like it.

Am i disturbed that Harper & Prentice do not echo my denier sentiments. No I have become used to Cnadian political compromise in public.

A few quick questions to you. Do you think that when Harper visited China and India he put the idea of intensity targets in China’s head and convinced the Indians to say they we’re not going to change anything?

Do you really think world leaders would be working towards a target of 550 ppm if they really believed in AGW and it would hit a tipping point at 350 ppm? Or do you think they are going through th motions for their own political objectives?

WHo are you refering too as their seems to be a consensus on the fact that we haven’t seen any global warming in quite some time and 1998 was the hottest year on record.
Sceptics like Kevin Trenberth who states in his e-mail that we haven’t seen global warming for about 10 years?

George Monbiot reviews the speech by US Secretary of Energy Steven Chu: it looks like the US is far behind Europe in technology. I bet Canada is little better. Too bad the military industrial complex never had an interest in energy efficiency.

“…He thrilled us with another US innovation, a technology called pumped storage: water can be pumped up a hill when electricity is cheap and released when it’s expensive. The UK started building its first pumped storage plant, Dinorwig, in 1974. Then he told us about a radical system for heating buildings by extracting heat from water: this must have been the one that the Royal Festival Hall used in 1951.

I’m sure these technologies have in fact been deployed for years in parts of the US. My point is that Chu appeared to believe that they represent the cutting edge of both technology and public policy…” http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/dec/14/us-technological-race-climate-change?showallcomments=true#start-of-comments

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.